Gravity: The why and the how:

Nothing worth to object, because it is only the usual paddoboy, with attacks but without arguments, but this is funny:

No, spacetime in GR is not an entity with a speed, thus, it also cannot have a speed which exceeds c. This is elementary knowledge about the spacetime interpretation of GR. Hamilton and Lisle sell this as "provides a delightfully simple conceptual picture". Means, this is a picture, not mathematics.

No. HR may appear valid in some sense, namely being a blackbody radiation of the Hawking temperature, but decreasing over time, which is what I think is correct. Then, it will have disappeared after a short period of time and not lead to evaporation. And, of course, HR is far away from shown to be valid, even if many think that it is valid. That there is the trans-Planckian problem is well-known and accepted, and the most powerful "argument" that it is nonetheless valid is - an analogon in acoustics, with quite different properties.

Click to expand...

Schmelzer doing what he does best, trying to get out from under and confuse and bamboozle with pedant nonsense.
Let me state it again, it is accepted mainstream cosmology, that over time all BH's will evaporate, on the understanding that HR is valid, and I see no reason why it isn't.

Estimated time until the central black hole of S5 0014+81, as of 2015 the most massive known with the mass of 40 billion solar masses, dissipates by the emission of Hawking radiation,[91] assuming zero angular momentum (non-rotating black hole). However, the black hole is on the state of accretion, so the time it takes may be longer than stated on the left.
1.342×1099

Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

A popular explanation, which tries to explain something to laymen, may be interesting for you, but it is irrelevant. Spacetime has no velocity in the spacetime interpretation of GR. If you disagree, show me a formula for the velocity of spacetime from a reasonable GR textbook, instead of words of popular explanations which are known to be often very inaccurate.

Then, if there would be HR of the same level as during the collapse itself, then the numbers you have quoted are trivial math, accessible even to you if you would try a little bit. But for this prediction to be reliable, the principles of special-relativistic quantum field theory would have to be reliable for distances of \(10^{10^{66}}\) or so seconds. Which is simply nonsensical.

Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

[1] A BH is thought to exist simply by the overwhelming indirect evidence of matter/energy and space/time within a region, that is unable to be explained by anything else. It is reasonable then to assume BH's do exist.

Click to expand...

The God said:

The concept of BH explains the observations. There are certain alternative explainations too, but they have certain issues. Whether it is reasonable or unreasonable to assume that BH's do exist, is a subjective matter.

Click to expand...

Schmelzer said:

It is unable to be explained by something else in GR. In other theories of gravity, there may be no BHs.

Click to expand...

2.

paddoboy said:

[3] This tells us that GR predicts its own downfall or the limits of its parameters at the quantum/Planck level.

Click to expand...

The God said:

Crap. The GR equations (for non spinning/Neutral BH metric) give division by zero at r = 0, not at Planck's level. Planck or Quantum Level has nothing to do with GR equations, they are just numerical values for equations.

Click to expand...

Schmelzer said:

GR predicts its own downfall because it predicts singularities. But quantum or Planck level is irrelevant here - because GR is not a quantum theory, thus, what it predicts about the own downfall cannot contain any constants related with Planck's constant.

Click to expand...

3.

paddoboy said:

[4] Most cosmologists are certain that there is no physical singularity at the center, and that in time this will be explained via a QGT.

Click to expand...

The God said:

Second part is another speculative crap. What, When and How of QGT are unknown as on date or at the best inconclusive. Dreaming that QGT will explain singulairty is naive and defeatist approach.

Click to expand...

Schmelzer said:

That there are no singularities in reality is a triviality. That one can rid of singularities in QGT is a quite naive hope.

Click to expand...

4.

paddoboy said:

[6] Both spin and charge, in time, will all be negated, but are subject to other conditions.

Click to expand...

The God said:

Vague statement

Click to expand...

Schmelzer said:

I'm unable to make sense of this.

Click to expand...

5.

paddoboy said:

[7]The BH itself will also in time evaporate via the HR mechanism, if that mechanism is valid according to generally accepted theory.

Click to expand...

The God said:

Another crap.
Theory behind HR mechanism (or process) is valid, but as long as CMBR absortption is there a stellar BH will never evaporate. We do not know when and after how much time CMBR will dilute to the level of nano degrees from a present 2.7 K and even then there is a possibility of equilibrum. Presently all stellar BHs, if any, are absorbing CMBR and increasing in mass.

Click to expand...

Schmelzer said:

No. This is true only if one assumes some basic principles of special-relativistic QFT remain valid even for extremely small distances, much much smaller than Planck length, an assumption which is completely unreliable, because it is clear that for such Planckian distances we need a theory of quantum gravity.

Click to expand...

6.

paddoboy said:

[8] Inside the EH of a BH, is simply pure spacetime in a critically curved topology that exceeds "c" and the reason why all paths lead to the Singularity

Click to expand...

The God said:

Unmitigated Crap.

Click to expand...

Schmelzer said:

Nonsense.

Click to expand...

Paddoboy, How do you know that Brucep gave you 10/10 for this, I gave you 2/10 and Schmelzer gave you 3/10, that too for the sake of your efforts. It appears to me that you are shaming Brucep by claiming that he has okayed this.

Is James realising the kind of falsehood you are spreading on this science forum? Quite a long rope he has given you??

Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

Paddoboy, How do you know that Brucep gave you 10/10 for this, I gave you 2/10 and Schmelzer gave you 3/10, that too for the sake of your efforts. It appears to me that you are shaming Brucep by claiming that he has okayed this.

Is James realising the kind of falsehood you are spreading on this science forum? Quite a long rope he has given you??

Click to expand...

What you give me is neither here nor there...It's about time you realized that.
And again, bruce has you on ignore, as others do for good reasons, so he doesn't read your nonsense.
When I have a pair of well known anti mainstream posters, continually trying to refute mainstream science and in the process me, I know I'm doing something right.
Secondly, your continued appeals to the forum administrator and accompanied false indignation, is known by most and probably treated with the contempt it deserves.
My previous two tutorials stand despite your rantings and my continued posts and claims will also.

Paddoboy seems uneducable as usual? Of course, the light speed limit is also a limit for the speed of light. BTW, it is even for light an upper limit, because light in a medium, like air, is slower than in vacuum. But even in vacuum it cannot be faster.

(And, of course, coordinate speeds of light can be whatver, from 0 to infinity.)

But, to repeat it again, there is no such animal in the GR spacetime interpretation as the speed of space or spacetime. Nix, nada. And if something has no velocity, it cannot have any speed limit, nor an upper, nor a lower, it simply has no speed, and, therefore, cannot move faster than light, because it does not move at all.

To give the phrase of a speed of spacetime a meaning, you, first, need a mathematical expression for its speed - and you have none. Then, you also have to give this speed a meaning, an interpretation.

This is what an ether interpretation of the GR equations can do, and does. In the ether interpretation, the speed of the ether, which would be the reasonable meaning of your "speed of spacetime", would be \(v^i(x,t) = g^{0i}(x,t)/g^{00}(x,t)\), where x and t are the coordinates of absolute space and time. Once you do not follow such an interpretation of GR, I would recommend you to learn the spacetime interpretation a little bit better, to understand that there exists no velocity of spacetime.

A popular explanation, which tries to explain something to laymen, may be interesting for you, but it is irrelevant. Spacetime has no velocity in the spacetime interpretation of GR.

Click to expand...

Let me just re-enforce again......despite your usual obfuscation space time is not curtailed by "c". Popular explanations may be dumbed down, but in general they are not wrong.http://phys.org/news/2015-02-space-faster.html
You of course, as is evidenced in your extreme political views, have an axe to grind, obviously also with me.

As an obvious professional schmelzer, you are quite expert in obfuscating and invoking some pedant to try and invalidate what I say, but also it should be noted that by your own admittance, that you do not really care about what mainstream science thinks, nor the generally accepted interpretation.
It's really about time you were honest with yourself, with science, and with this forum. Your political views, as extreme as they are, are your own....but your scientific views along with your professional status, should demand more honesty, and less childish pedant and far less obfuscation with lay people.

I stand by my claims schmelzer, all of them, the whole 10, as correct, not withstanding any god like stupidity, pedant and efforts to drown out a lay person that just happened to deride your ether paper.
Do better. [I hope

Of course, the light speed limit is also a limit for the speed of light. BTW, it is even for light an upper limit, because light in a medium, like air, is slower than in vacuum. But even in vacuum it cannot be faster.

Click to expand...

To infer I have said that is wrong and it re-enforces the cesspool level you sink to in lying.

But, to repeat it again, there is no such animal in the GR spacetime interpretation as the speed of space or spacetime. Nix, nada. And if something has no velocity, it cannot have any speed limit, nor an upper, nor a lower, it simply has no speed, and, therefore, cannot move faster than light, because it does not move at all.

To give the phrase of a speed of spacetime a meaning, you, first, need a mathematical expression for its speed - and you have none. Then, you also have to give this speed a meaning, an interpretation.

Click to expand...

Let me state it again. The universal speed limit "c" is only concerned with massive objects. Space time as a result is not curtailed by "c"

This is what an ether interpretation of the GR equations can do, and does. In the ether interpretation, the speed of the ether, which would be the reasonable meaning of your "speed of spacetime", would be \(v^i(x,t) = g^{0i}(x,t)/g^{00}(x,t)\), where x and t are the coordinates of absolute space and time. Once you do not follow such an interpretation of GR, I would recommend you to learn the spacetime interpretation a little bit better, to understand that there exists no velocity of spacetime.

Click to expand...

Whatever excuse you need to raise your obscure ether paper is your own business. With regards to the rest, see my previous post.

Not completely off, writes: "Spacetime is not expanding with respect to anything outside of itself, so the the speed of light as a limit on its velocity doesn't apply." This is more or less what I say - there is no speed of spacetime, and if there is no speed, to talk about a speed limit is meaningless.

No, this is less reputable. Not even worth to be discussed. Not published in a peer-reviewed paper, and this is not an accident, this guy has not written a published paper himself. He has three published paper, all as member of a group and about something experimental. In comparison with this, my ether papers are mainstream.

And I have not claimed that light has a mass, or does not travel with speed of light, so the point of your third link is beyond me.

Then, I simply correct what is wrong in your claims. If there is nothing objectionable, I do not object. It is quite simple. For a professional scientist this is the natural behavior - to criticize what is wrong. Science teachers do this all the time, this is the main part of teaching. And, of course, even if I personally believe in ether theory, and develop it, I do know also the mainstream spacetime interpretation, thus, I can correct also your errors from point of view of the spacetime interpretation.

Your problem is that you take simple corrections as personal attacks and simply refuse to learn. But this is your personal decision, to be uneducable. If you would be a reasonable guy, who would want to learn something, I could explain you your errors. But you are not interested. So be it.

Let me state it again. The universal speed limit "c" is only concerned with massive objects. Space time as a result is not curtailed by "c"

Click to expand...

And, again, this is wrong, because the speed limit c applies to massless things like light too. And, I repeat myself, something like spacetime, which does not have a speed, cannot have a speed limit.

It is simply funny, you seem to see yourself as a defender of mainstream science against an ether theoretician, but in fact I try - without success - to explain you your errors regarding mainstream physics.

To explain you my "agenda": I have some personal interest, in part psychological, to find optimal method to handle cranks of various types. Is it possible to handle aggressive behavior using meaningful arguments? (During USENET time, I was quite optimistic about this. Today I'm much more pessimistic. One reason is, of course, that at USENET time the public was different, mostly programmers at universities. Then came aol "me too", but even after this the intellectual level was, compared with the actual one, quite high. So, I think it is not only that today everybody has internet, which makes the difference, but there is also some decrease in education in general.) Whatever, if I meet some aggressive behavior, I try to see if one can change this. And I have to admit that in the past this has been easier. Or the aggressive guy started to behave more appropriately (seldom, but it happened), or he stopped discussing after a short time, understanding that he only discredits himself. This, it seems, no longer works.

Not completely off, writes: "Spacetime is not expanding with respect to anything outside of itself,

Click to expand...

Don't be so intellectually dishonest Schmelzer, again!
What I said......The universal speed limit of "c" applies to anything with mass. Light/photons do not have rest mass, and neither does space time.
and even further back after you started being silly.....In GR nothing WITH MASS exceeds "c". Spacetime is not curtailed by the Universal speed limit. So yes, spacetime is considered mathematically to be falling towards the Singularity at greater than "c"
alsohttp://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0411060.pdf
I absolutely stand by those statements, your obfuscation and pedant not withstanding.

No, this is less reputable. Not even worth to be discussed. Not published in a peer-reviewed paper, and this is not an accident, this guy has not written a published paper himself. He has three published paper, all as member of a group and about something experimental. In comparison with this, my ether papers are mainstream.

Click to expand...

That's your opinion, and my opinion is his paper still has more respectibility than your own.

Paddoboy seems uneducable as usual? Of course, the light speed limit is also a limit for the speed of light. BTW, it is even for light an upper limit, because light in a medium, like air, is slower than in vacuum. But even in vacuum it cannot be faster.

Click to expand...

It's obvious in your efforts to get a victory via confusion, you have utterly confused yourself.

Then, I simply correct what is wrong in your claims. If there is nothing objectionable, I do not object. It is quite simple. For a professional scientist this is the natural behavior - to criticize what is wrong.

Click to expand...

I wish that were true, but it ain't. If it was the case you would be correcting a lot more others than me...one in particular.This makes it totally hypocritical in what you claim.

Your problem is that you take simple corrections as personal attacks and simply refuse to learn. But this is your personal decision, to be uneducable. If you would be a reasonable guy, who would want to learn something, I could explain you your errors. But you are not interested. So be it.

Click to expand...

Wrong again. I have been corrected by quite a few reputable people here...some of them are not now posting, due to the increased noise from some of our alternative cranks, and I have taken that correction/s, with all the grace and aplomb befitting a lay person.

And, again, this is wrong, because the speed limit "c" applies to massless things like light too. And, I repeat myself, something like spacetime, which does not have a speed, cannot have a speed limit.

Some of the misunderstandings surrounding this topic might come from confusion over what is meant by the universe "expanding faster than the speed of light." However, for the simplest interpretation of your question, the answer is that the universe does expand faster than the speed of light, and, perhaps more surprisingly, some of the galaxies we can see right now are currently moving away from us faster than the speed of light! As a consequence of their great speeds, these galaxies will likely not be visible to us forever; some of them are right now emitting their last bit of light that will ever be able to make it all the way across space and reach us (billions of years from now). After that, we will observe them to freeze and fade, never to be heard from again.
Now in the above, probably yourself and the god, will naturally latch onto "for the simplest Interpretation" That's OK, as I have inferred with yourself and your obvious agenda, there are sometimes different interpretations, and each maybe as correct as the other.
In the two extra links and references that I have been good enough to get for you [sacrificing my time] my claim is totally supported.

The rest of your childish indignant post is really not worth responding to.

Expanding Confusion:
common misconceptions of cosmological horizons
and the superluminal expansion of the universe Tamara M. Davis 1 Charles H. Lineweaver University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia, 2052tamarad@phys.unsw.edu.aucharley@bat.phys.unsw.edu.au

Abstract:
We use standard general relativity to illustrate and clarify several common misconceptions about the expansion of the universe. To show the abundance of these misconceptions we cite numerous misleading, or easily misinterpreted, statements in the literature. In the context of the new standard ΛCDM cosmology we point out confusions regarding the particle horizon, the event horizon, the “observable universe” and the Hubble sphere (distance at which recession velocity = c). We show that we can observe galaxies that have, and always have had, recession velocities greater than the speed of light.We explain why this does not violate special relativity and we link these concepts to observational tests. Attempts to restrict recession velocities to less than the speed of light require a special relativistic interpretation of cosmological redshifts. We analyze apparent magnitudes of supernovae and observationally rule out the special relativistic Doppler interpretation of cosmological redshifts at a confidence level of 23σ.

conclusions:
We have clarified some common misconceptions surrounding the expansion of the universe, and shown with numerous references how misleading statements manifest themselves in the literature. Superluminal recession is a feature of all expanding cosmological models that are homogeneous and isotropic and therefore obey Hubble’s law. This does not contradict special relativity because the superluminal motion does not occur in any observer’s inertial frame. All observers measure light locally to be travelling at c and nothing ever overtakes a photon. Inflation is often called “superluminal recession” but even during inflation objects with D < c/H recede subluminally while objects with D > c/H recede superluminally. Precisely the same relationship holds for non-inflationary expansion. We showed that the Hubble sphere is not a horizon —

AbstractA straightforward interpretation of standard Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker (FLRW) cosmologies is that objects move apart because of the expansion of space, and that sufficiently distant galaxies must be receding at velocities exceeding the speed of light. Recently, however, it has been suggested that a simple transformation into conformal coordinates can remove superluminal recession velocities, and hence the concept of the expansion of space should be abandoned. This work demonstrates that such conformal transformations do not eliminate superluminal recession velocities for open or flat matter-only FLRW cosmologies, and all possess superluminal expansion. Hence the attack on the concept of the expansion of space based on this is poorly founded. This work concludes by emphasizing that the expansion of space is perfectly valid in the general relativistic framework; however, asking the question of whether space really expands is a futile exercise.

Your problem is Paddoboy, most of the time you do not even understand what is Mainstream, and you argue and abuse to defend the incorrect notion you have about science.

Click to expand...

Schmelzer to Paddoboy said:

It is simply funny, you seem to see yourself as a defender of mainstream science............., but in fact I try - without success - to explain you your errors regarding mainstream physics.

Click to expand...

Paddoboy, I suggest you seek Brucep review of these 10 points of yours, it is not that some kind of confirmation is required by me or by Schmelzer. He is your boss, so hopefully you will listen to him and get educated.

With you argument is no longer Alternative Vs Mainstream, it is simply correcting your flawed mainstream understanding which you have failed to learn despite a decade or so on such forums.

Paddoboy, I suggest you seek Brucep review of these 10 points of yours, it is not that some kind of confirmation is required by me or by Schmelzer. He is your boss, so hopefully you will listen to him and get educated.

My dear friend, I suggest you stop suggesting. Bruce reads my posts, he ignores yours.Does that tell you something? Plus your childish maniacal obsession with him is now reaching worrying proportions...for you that is.

As I have informed you before, when I have two posters, both shall we say, less than accepted mainstream, railing against my claims, I know I must be doing something right.
Particularly when all my claims are supported and referenced with reputable links and papers.

My dear friend, I suggest you stop suggesting. Bruce reads my posts, he ignores yours.Does that tell you something? Plus your childish maniacal obsession with him is now reaching worrying proportions...for you that is.

As I have informed you before, when I have two posters, both shall we say, less than accepted mainstream, railing against my claims, I know I must be doing something right.
Particularly when all my claims are supported and referenced with reputable links and papers.

Please back up any claim you have with reputable references.
Otherwise you are pissing into the wind.Many scientific papers there my son for you to logically refute with references. But you can't.

Click to expand...

Obsession with Brucep ?? What is this new nonsense, he is your Boss, for me he is an uncivilised bum.

Since he is your Boss, get those points reviewed by him, and if he is honest he will let you know....

Since he is your Boss, get those points reviewed by him, and if he is honest he will let you know....

Click to expand...

In recent times I have noticed a religious undertones in your posts, and couple that with the many childish remarks such as the above, that you make when cornered, and its no wonder you lack any credibility on this forum.
And by the way, I have had differences of opinions and interpretations with Bruce and along with a handful of other reputable posters. on relatively minor issues, which puts your really childish claims to bed.

Oh, instead of your usual obsessions with either me or bruce, please take time out to reference all that you claim.
As an amateur, it is really your duty to do that.

In recent times I have noticed a religious undertones in your posts, and couple that with the many childish remarks such as the above, that you make when cornered, and its no wonder you lack any credibility on this forum.
And by the way, I have had differences of opinions and interpretations with Bruce and along with a handful of other reputable posters. on relatively minor issues, which puts your really childish claims to bed.

Click to expand...

Except the name, there is nothing religious about my arguments on this sub forum. I know how to keep both separate, and I don't tom tom around like you that my Mrs is reigious but I am not, just keep your dirty mouth shut on this aspect.

Oh, instead of your usual obsessions with either me or bruce, please take time out to reference all that you claim.
As an amateur, it is really your duty to do that.

Click to expand...

You read again all the links or references you are providing, still if you fail then take the help of your Boss. You amply prove that it is not the guarantee that a poster who supplies a link or reference, really understands the content of such link/reference.

Except the name, there is nothing religious about my arguments on this sub forum. I know how to keep both separate, and I don't tom tom around like you that my Mrs is reigious but I am not, just keep your dirty mouth shut on this aspect.

You read again all the links or references you are providing, still if you fail then take the help of your Boss. You amply prove that it is not the guarantee that a poster who supplies a link or reference, really understands the content of such link/reference.

I understand all right and that's what is bugging you....along with my perception and revelations about you [now numbering two]
Like I said with regards to bruce, you seem totally obsessed by him. Is this because he has you on ignore?

I absolutely stand by those statements, your obfuscation and pedant not withstanding.
[sacrificing my time]

Click to expand...

You have convinced me, answering you would be sacrificing my time.

The positive thing about you is that you sometimes find interesting papers. For example, http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808v2 (I would recommend you to link the abs on arxiv) is a really good paper, makes a lot of good points, finds an error even in Feynman. That's not that easy, even if he has made a lot of public lectures, and given that it is very hard, almost impossible, to avoid errors if one wants to make things easy to understand, there have to be some. Worth to be bookmarked, because the errors mentioned there are quite common.

The funny thing is that, in your aim to defend your errors, you show the ability to find the weakest places in the papers you quote. Here you have succeeded, and found even an error there, congratulations.

"Superluminal recession is a feature of all expanding cosmological models that are homogeneous and isotropic and therefore obey Hubble’s law."

False, one can construct a homogeneous, isotropic expanding universe which does not have superluminal recession velocities. The point is that in a closed universe, there is (different from the open and flat one) a maximal distance at each moment of time. Thus, there will be also a maximal recession velocity. If this maximal distance remains bounded, say because a(t) remains later than some maximal value, and the expansion rate is slow enough, the recession velocity will remain below c. Ok, this is a minor point, and I would certainly nonetheless recommend publication.

I could try to explain you why your quotes do not show what you think they show (of course, recession velocities refer to the trajectories of comoving objects, not to some nonexisting speed of spacetime itself), but this would be sacrificing my time without any gain, nor for me, nor for you, given that you will absolutely stand to your false claim anyway.

The funny thing is that, in your aim to defend your errors, you show the ability to find the weakest places in the papers you quote. Here you have succeeded, and found even an error there, congratulations.

Click to expand...

The even more funny thing is that although obviously you being a professional, you have far more capabilities than I. It's just a crying shame that you chose to be rather intellectually dishonest.
What we are disagreeing on about now depends on ones FoR.
You know that as well as I, but lack the gumption to say that I'm correct in particular circumstances, and those circumstances and FoR, are what is generally inferred.
In fact all my claims are "general" in application. And I still stand by all and whether you chose to accept being told by a lay person that you are wrong in your approach, does not interest me anymore.
I have supplied at least half a dozen references, and scientific papers.
All you have done is squirm, twist, misinterpret, procrastinate, obfuscate to avoid what I claim and is accepted in generally accepted circles and terms.
That methodology can be expected from a crank like the god, but is a shame for a professional.